Strictly average movie

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

"Halloween 5" finds Jami Lloyd locked up in a mental institution for killing her mother in the last film. Everything seems to be normal for her, or as normal as things can get, until she starts having visions of her uncle, Michael Myers, coming for her. Soon enough, Myers does come back for Jami, after being in a coma for a year. Which leads us to the dumbest thing in the film, Jami having a telekinetic connection to her uncle. Just saying that, it sounds dumb. But, when it comes from a "Halloween" film- one of the smartest horror franchises around-it really hurts to see."Halloween 5" isn't the worst sequel in the series, trust me there's far worse, but it's a great step in the wrong direction considering "Halloween 4" brought the franchise back to it's roots with a very chilling story. The best way to describe "Halloween 5" is that it feels like a "Friday The 13th" clone, even though "Halloween" came first. The teenagers are all sex driven maniacs who only have two emotions-annoyingly excited or just plain annoying-and the violence is toned way up for this installment. That's not to say I don't love a good bit of gore, but when you have such poor direction and the gore is the only thing going for your film, well... If anything good is to be said about "Halloween 5" it's that, despite the films many, many, many, many, many flaws, it still somehow manages to be frightening in a few scenes-specifically when Dr. Loomis is walking around the old dilapidated home of Myers. There's no jump scares or gore, but you have this heavy sense of dread throughout the whole scene. All in all, "Halloween 5" is pretty much the definition of an 80's horror film. You've got the big haired, sex crazed twenty somethings, you've got the zombified maniac lumbering around, but you don't have many scares-or a good plot for that matter.

It was the right move to release the next "Halloween" film soon after the fourth one. The events that led to the previous film's conclusion, naturally paved the way for the story of "Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers." As before, Donald Pleasence as the slightly unhinged Sam Loomis and Danielle Harris as Jamie are back and they make the film watchable. Ellie Cornell is written out near the beginning, which was a mistake in my opinion. She was a good character in the previous film and relevant to the plot. However, it is left to Pleasence and Harris to carry the movie between them and they do this very well. The story moves one year on after the Halloween of 1988. Jamie is now a patient of Doctor Loomis and she seems to be telepathically linked with Michael Myers, in that she can sense where he is and who he will slain next. This part of the film makes little sense as it isn't fully explained. That applies to the story in general. There is no explanation given as to who the man in the cowboy boots is. We don't see his face and no one mentions him in the script. He simply appears out of nowhere and the audience is expected to take it for granted that the character has some relevance. From my vantage point, he does not. The murder scenes are capably handled and Donald Pleasence gives a typically good performance. Danielle Harris is once again an effective performer and has been promoted to "leading lady" status for this film. It was crucial that the two main characters be played by the same actors, especially as this "Halloween" film comes so soon after the 1988 film. I enjoyed the scenes with Pleasence calling out to Myers in the woods after Jamie have been saved for the time being and also the confrontation between the Doctor and his former patient inside the old Myers residence. Michael Myers looks a bit more physically imposing this time around, which is good. The mask still looks a bit stupid though! The ending left me feeling a bit cheated. The mysterious man in the cowboy boots comes along and rescues Myers and slaughters the entire Haddonfield police department. That is all very well but what about Loomis and Jamie? What happened to them? The former character has vanished without a trace and the latter is left standing in the police department on her own.... Not a bad film at all but it needed a better and more cohesive plot.

Picking up hot off the heels of the action and box office success of 1988's "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers," the titular masked killer returns with swift vengeance just a year later in "Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers." The film was rushed into production, and brother, does it show. With another director at the helm -- this time French director Dominique Othenin-Girard ("Omen IV: The Awakening") -- and the return of all the major survivors from the previous film, "Halloween 5" keeps continuity but still feels slightly off.It's a year after the events of "Halloween 4." Michael (played by a rather beefy Donald Shanks) has retreated, having survived a blast of gunfire at the hands of the Haddonfield police department. In the wake of his devastation, his poor, innocent niece Jamie (Danielle Harris) has been rendered mute and forever scarred. Once a familiar series of murders start cropping up, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) presses Jamie -- who now seemingly has a psychic link with Michael - - for information, completely oblivious to the fact that a mysterious man in black is ghosting him the whole time."Halloween 5" isn't a great or even a good movie, but it pretty much hits all the right spots as far as late '80s slashers go, and manages to introduce a few new intriguing elements to the series. Like "4" before, it's another relatively violent affair and the eye of the foreign director certainly gives this one a unique vibe and look. It's a terribly flawed film -- from its plot contrivances to a few annoying characters (oh my god, those cops...) -- but still pretty consistent with what came before. Michael's revenge ultimately isn't as compelling as one would hope, but it's certainly more enjoyable than his future curses and resurrections, respectively.

There comes a point in time where a viewer who has seen enough sequels to a horror franchise where it doesn't phase them anymore. When a formula is repeated over and over and over and over again, the redundancy feels more like an attribute of lazy writing versus actually copying out of flattery. It's obvious as to why studios love making sequels but it's crazy as to how they believe one exact formula is necessary for all entries. There has to be some kind of creative brainstorming going on in the background otherwise every entry after the original continues to just rinse and rehash the same concept until the end of its run. After the blunder of Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) and the lukewarm return of Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers (1988), production studio Magnum Pictures Inc. felt a year later was just enough time to make another sequel. Unfortunately since Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982), there has been a stagnation of quality in this series. This is okay but nothing to cheer over either.Written by Michael Jacobs, Shem Bitterman and Dominique Othenin-Girard, the story picks up a year later after the last film. After killing her stepmother, Jaime Strode (Danielle Harris) now lives in a child care clinic where she is under the supervision of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). Knowing that her uncle Michael Myers (Don Shanks) is still alive and well, Dr. Loomis hopes to get whatever information he can from his now mute niece. Trying to keep a cool head is returning characters Jaime's stepsister Rachel (Ellie Cornell), her friend Tina (Wendy Foxworth) and the local sheriff Ben Meeker (Beau Starr). It sounds like an okay setup but really much the execution is flawed. For the three writers mentioned, all but one had prior horror film making experience so that's already a fairly bad start when it comes to continuing a horror franchise. Directing this sequel was also writer Dominique Othenin-Girard. Girard's direction unfortunately does not improve the viewing experience all that much.What truly hurts this sequel's performance is how empty the story is on substance and the few frightening moments. This is by far the sequel with the most holes in its plot. There's no explanation to numerous things. No reason as to why Jaime no longer has the Myer's killer instinct. No understanding is made as to why Michael Myers returned exactly one year later when he could've done so much sooner. Nothing is justified as to why Jaime is mute after the events of the first movie. There's even a new character that enters this series and he too is given no background information whatsoever. What gives? The pacing is another problem. Like the slew of other slasher films that were inspired by its original film, many scenes contain teenagers walking around calling out into vacant rooms and saying how much it isn't funny anymore. There needs to be development in some of these characters otherwise, there's no scare factor involved throughout the movie. There are some moments of intrigue that are made as the film gets closer to the finale but that's it.The kill scenes are also rather disappointing. Only a couple of Michael Myers' victims have a memorable scene with him. A lot of the other deaths are off screen. There's also nothing wrong with the idea of less is more, but there's nothing new that's added to the end result. However here is what does work. The main actors such as Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasence are the best parts. As much as it's sad to see Pleasence continue to try and make this series watchable, he still carries some kind of dramatic heft. Although his character is becoming less and less useful. Harris was okay although she is mute. Her fear looks real on screen as well when Myers is around. Shanks as Myers was okay too but did miss the opportunity to do several Myers like responses such as the infamous "head tilt". The rest of the supporting cast is all right but they do not add much to the actual narrative. The thing viewers can be grateful for is at least the casting department brought back what was left of the previous cast for another round.The visual aspect of things was decent as well. Robert Draper handled the cinematography. Although he had worked on small and big screen productions, this was Draper's first big theatrical entry. For what was shown, it looked adequate. It was when Draper's skill and the set decorations worked together to create some creepy scenes. Sadly it wasn't very often but when it was seen, it worked. This takes place in the old Myer's house. Returning composer Alan Howarth produced the musical score. Considering he has been apart of the franchise dating back to Halloween II (1981) with John Carpenter, it's reassuring to know there's one more dedicated crewmember. Howarth's score continues Carpenter's memorable theme from the series and includes various other motifs as well. It isn't perfect nor is it entirely effective but it does make up for a lot of the other issues going on with this movie. The score itself is still mainly made up of synthesizer keyboard and that's fine looking at it's origins.While it may have a decent musical score, returning credible actors and adequate camera-work, this sequel continues to hit the middle of the road. The story is bare bones developed, the reasoning behind several things goes untouched, its pacing is pretty slow and the creep factor is hardly there. It's not worse than any other prior entry starting from Halloween II (1981) but it doesn't bother to add much either.